A couple of weeks ago, I read an OpEd article by Edward Glaeser titled "The locovore's dilemma". Glaeser is one of my favourite urban scholars and we have blogged about his ideas a number of times on this blog. However, I didn't agree with many of his points in his OpEd. I passed along the article to my friend, Darlene Seto, to gather her thoughts about the article. She wrote a response to it, which you can view below.
Beyond the locovore's dilemma, urban farming for the 21st century
By: Darlene Seto
As a general admirer of Edward Glaeser’s work, I was most dismayed to see his recent June 16th OpEd for The Boston Globe, where he proclaimed, most erringly, that urban farms do more harm than good to the environment. I disagree.
Glaeser’s principal case against urban farming lies in the carbon output linked to such farms; he equates increasing urban farmland with an automatic reduction in living density, thereby increasing metropolitan sprawl. Yet his homogeneous use of ‘cropland’ fails to differentiate between the more intensive cultivation of vegetables, as more commonly found in urban areas, and the sprawling land involved in the production of commodities like corn, the crop which he uses to cite as a resource intensive no-no for urban agriculture. But not all farming is equal – and Glaeser’s assertions about land density might look a lot different were he to parse out those vast monocultures from his analysis, and especially were he to include the entire carbon life of much industrial corn, which then includes the methane emissions of feedlot cattle and petrochemical plastics.
Glaeser’s main failing, however, is not being able to see beyond the current agricultural paradigm. What agriculture looks like now – in a rural setting - is assumed to be what agriculture is in an urban one. Urban farms, however, are not large crop monocultures plopped down in the middle of a busy and well-utilized urban space.
Here in Vancouver, British Columbia, where I am writing from, a number of urban farms make their existence using vacant land or under-utilized land – spaces such as parking lots, individuals’ backyards (or frontyards!) and similar space. Food is grown in these smaller pieces of land, sometimes solely in hundreds of planters or boxes. By piecing together the yards of cooperative landowners around the city, these entrepreneurial farmers are using the urban context to re-imagine traditional conceptions of agriculture, creating new and vital landscapes in our neighbourhoods. And given the administrative and institutional challenges in which most urban farmers already face in dense urban areas, urban farming hardly imperils the urban densification or the commercial use of prime urban real estate, but rather puts other space into productive use.
Finally, while Glaeser does fleetingly mention some of the other benefits of urban agriculture – such as its educational value to children – such instances do not seem to hold any effective value in his argument. The benefits of having localized food initiatives such as urban farms, however, reach far beyond mere carbon mileage – and indeed are much more important and difficult to quantify. Glaeser’s greenhouse gas focus does not look at the broader environmental impacts of urban food (understanding that the environment is the area in which we live, work and play; another point I would contest in Glaeser’s piece). Increasing food assets in a city through things such as urban farming not only reduces food insecurity and better health outcomes, but promotes greater resiliency in an era of increasing climactic uncertainty, supports local economic activity, and contributes to community development and capacity building.
Take note: If anything, I would agree that the most important benefits to localized food systems are not at all in carbon savings from transportation. But it is through OpEds such as the one to which I am responding, that create an erroneous understanding of the potential for urban agriculture. This is a time where most cities should be attempting to retain all the green space and food assets that they can get. We should be working to understand and support the committed individuals and organizations working in this sector.
Darlene Seto is a graduate student at the Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability at the University of British Columbia, Canada. A keen student of environment policy and governance, her current graduate work revolves around diversity and engagement in alternative food systems.
Showing posts with label Guest Entry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Guest Entry. Show all posts
Sunday, July 3, 2011
Monday, February 14, 2011
Guest Entry: Paper Bag it or the Back of the Line for You
By: Maria Rainier
Image credit: Photos Public Domain
We all do it – go to the grocery store and forget to bring our reusable grocery bags. Oops, I’ll just have to remember next time. But in some states and countries and maybe soon everywhere, using plastic bags won’t be an option. San Francisco started the trend in 2007, banning plastic bags in grocery stores – according to a story covered by NPR in 2008, other cities, states and countries are jumping on the bandwagon to ban the use of plastic bags.
There are many conveniences to using plastics bags: they are lightweight, cheap, easy to use, always available and always convenient. Banning these conveniences seems like a major inconvenience to most people, but the impact of plastic bags on the environment is what’s most inconvenient.
The harmful effects of plastic bags on the environment:
1.Plastic bags litter the landscape and if burned, produce toxic fumes
2.Plastic bags are non-biodegradable and stick around for about 1,000 years, long after landfills
3. Plastic bags kill animals through ingestion and strangulation
4. Petroleum is used to produce plastic bags – we need petroleum unfortunately
How many times have you driven by a park, parking lot, garden or anywhere else and seen a plastic bag just sitting there, glued to another unobtrusive object? Unobtrusive may have been a bad descriptor for a plastic bag; in all reality, there’s nothing unobtrusive about it.
How many times have you been accosted or surprised by a plastic bag flying in your face or seen one floating into space. In fact, a major part of the film American Beauty, where the boy says to Jane it is “the most beautiful thing I’ve ever filmed,” is about a plastic bag. Really? If that’s beautiful then Ricky, you need to get out more.
Many cities and countries have already started banning the use of plastic bags in supermarkets and stores:
Click here for a detailed list of these countries’ Plastic Bag Laws.
Plastic bags may be convenient for our daily lives but they are detrimental to the environment and when we start taking these environmental risks into consideration, only then will we be able to do something about it. The citizens who helped start the movement back in 2007 in San Francisco, probably started by voluntarily banning themselves from the use of plastic bags because starting a movement starts with yourself.
I have recently chosen to ban myself from using plastic bags as well – it’s simple really. I put reusable bags in my car for when I go grocery shopping and in the event that I forget them, I make myself buy news one to bring home my new purchases in. Having to buy a reusable bag that I already have at home is my way of punishing myself – I would rather go broke, due to my own forgetfulness, than punish the environment.
Maria Rainier is a freelance writer and blog junkie. She is currently a resident blogger at First in Education, where she's been looking into gender wage gap statistics to see if it can be explained through women choosing lower paying degrees and men choosing higher paying degrees. In her spare time, she enjoys square-foot gardening, swimming, and avoiding her laptop.
Image credit: Photos Public Domain
We all do it – go to the grocery store and forget to bring our reusable grocery bags. Oops, I’ll just have to remember next time. But in some states and countries and maybe soon everywhere, using plastic bags won’t be an option. San Francisco started the trend in 2007, banning plastic bags in grocery stores – according to a story covered by NPR in 2008, other cities, states and countries are jumping on the bandwagon to ban the use of plastic bags.There are many conveniences to using plastics bags: they are lightweight, cheap, easy to use, always available and always convenient. Banning these conveniences seems like a major inconvenience to most people, but the impact of plastic bags on the environment is what’s most inconvenient.
The harmful effects of plastic bags on the environment:
1.Plastic bags litter the landscape and if burned, produce toxic fumes
2.Plastic bags are non-biodegradable and stick around for about 1,000 years, long after landfills
3. Plastic bags kill animals through ingestion and strangulation
4. Petroleum is used to produce plastic bags – we need petroleum unfortunately
How many times have you driven by a park, parking lot, garden or anywhere else and seen a plastic bag just sitting there, glued to another unobtrusive object? Unobtrusive may have been a bad descriptor for a plastic bag; in all reality, there’s nothing unobtrusive about it.
How many times have you been accosted or surprised by a plastic bag flying in your face or seen one floating into space. In fact, a major part of the film American Beauty, where the boy says to Jane it is “the most beautiful thing I’ve ever filmed,” is about a plastic bag. Really? If that’s beautiful then Ricky, you need to get out more.
Many cities and countries have already started banning the use of plastic bags in supermarkets and stores:
- San Jose recently passed a ban on the usage of plastic bags and many surrounding cities are following the ordinance.
- Last November, parts of L.A. banned single-use and disposable plastic bags to 1.1 million people
- In August 2009, Mexico City banned the use of plastic bags from check-out lines at supermarkets
- In January, Muntinlupa City in the Philippines banned plastic bags & polystyrene containers
- Michigan is starting a movement and petition to ban plastic bag usage in their state
- Last October, an ordinance went into affect banning plastic bags from the Outer Banks of Dare, Currituck and Hyde counties.
Click here for a detailed list of these countries’ Plastic Bag Laws.
Plastic bags may be convenient for our daily lives but they are detrimental to the environment and when we start taking these environmental risks into consideration, only then will we be able to do something about it. The citizens who helped start the movement back in 2007 in San Francisco, probably started by voluntarily banning themselves from the use of plastic bags because starting a movement starts with yourself.
I have recently chosen to ban myself from using plastic bags as well – it’s simple really. I put reusable bags in my car for when I go grocery shopping and in the event that I forget them, I make myself buy news one to bring home my new purchases in. Having to buy a reusable bag that I already have at home is my way of punishing myself – I would rather go broke, due to my own forgetfulness, than punish the environment.
Maria Rainier is a freelance writer and blog junkie. She is currently a resident blogger at First in Education, where she's been looking into gender wage gap statistics to see if it can be explained through women choosing lower paying degrees and men choosing higher paying degrees. In her spare time, she enjoys square-foot gardening, swimming, and avoiding her laptop.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Guest Entry: A View from Above: Examining Ottawa’s Greenbelt
By: Liam McGuire
Photo Courtesy and Copyright of Jason Walton
It takes a view from above to see what is happening below. This past December I was reacquainted with the snow covered landscapes of Ontario, as white terrain stretched out underneath my flight. As we descended, streetlights below illuminated the urban layout of my hometown Ottawa. As I craned my neck to the windowpane for a better look, my view from above told a story of how this city has grown. A large black swath of darkness interrupted the city lights, separating the urban core and the surrounding constellation of suburban communities.
This observation reignited old thoughts about the Greenbelt that surrounds Ottawa’s core urban region. The greenbelt in itself is not a new idea. Among other influences, the idea of an environmental buffer zone comes from the Garden City concept of Ebenezer Howard. In Howard’s time, overpopulation was a huge worry for cities, and the residential communities on the other side of the greenbelt offered relief to the bustling industrial core. Lewis Mumford sums it up well: “the Garden City, as Howard defined it, is not a suburb but the antithesis of a suburb: not a more rural retreat, but a more integrated foundation for an effective urban life.”
Garden City Plan (Ebenezer Howard)
If urban planners wish to preserve that foundation for an effective urban life, they need to sit down and think about the green belt in a contemporary sense. My view from above observed communities that had leapfrogged, trading density for the greenfield development of former farmland. Abundant green space is by all means necessary to keep a strong ecological balance, however the city’s inability to enforce urban density has allowed exponential amounts of sprawl. Population forecasts for the outer greenbelt communities are high. By 2031, Orlean’s population will grow by 25%, Kanata/Stittsville by 83%, and Riverside South Leitrim by 381%. Inside the Greenbelt, the population will grow a meager 7%. So much for “smart growth.”
Ottawa's Greenbelt (City of Ottawa)
Ottawa in 1955 (Natural Resources Canada)
Ottawa in 2002 (Natural Resources Canada)
Inevitably this will place huge pressures on the infrastructure of the city. Jobs will continue to be located in the urban core, and highways will need to expand rapidly. Judging by Ottawa’s track record with municipal light rail, there will be no mass transit solution anytime soon. It's time to rethink Ottawa’s master plan, and the upcoming National Capital Commission (NCC) greenbelt review is the perfect time to do it. Starting thoughts range from planning for density in the core to speeding up mass transit plans, however my purpose is just to get the conversation started. Ottawa is a beautiful city, and we pride ourselves on it. I’m not advocating tearing down our Greenbelt, I’m advocating that we start to make it a functional part of the city’s ecology. The City of Ottawa and the NCC need to consider the view from above as they plan for the future. This requires an approach of balancing environmental and infrastructural considerations, and finding city officials and community leaders who are up to the challenge.
Liam McGuire is a Master's student in Urban Geography at the University of British Columbia. He completed his Honour's BA at Trent University in 2009 in Human Geography and Political Science. Liam is very passionate about cities; their development, spatial growth and demographics. He has many opinions and insights about how cities should develop and could be contacted at: liam.mcguire@geog.ubc.ca
Photo Courtesy and Copyright of Jason WaltonThis observation reignited old thoughts about the Greenbelt that surrounds Ottawa’s core urban region. The greenbelt in itself is not a new idea. Among other influences, the idea of an environmental buffer zone comes from the Garden City concept of Ebenezer Howard. In Howard’s time, overpopulation was a huge worry for cities, and the residential communities on the other side of the greenbelt offered relief to the bustling industrial core. Lewis Mumford sums it up well: “the Garden City, as Howard defined it, is not a suburb but the antithesis of a suburb: not a more rural retreat, but a more integrated foundation for an effective urban life.”
Garden City Plan (Ebenezer Howard)If urban planners wish to preserve that foundation for an effective urban life, they need to sit down and think about the green belt in a contemporary sense. My view from above observed communities that had leapfrogged, trading density for the greenfield development of former farmland. Abundant green space is by all means necessary to keep a strong ecological balance, however the city’s inability to enforce urban density has allowed exponential amounts of sprawl. Population forecasts for the outer greenbelt communities are high. By 2031, Orlean’s population will grow by 25%, Kanata/Stittsville by 83%, and Riverside South Leitrim by 381%. Inside the Greenbelt, the population will grow a meager 7%. So much for “smart growth.”
Ottawa's Greenbelt (City of Ottawa)
Ottawa in 1955 (Natural Resources Canada)
Ottawa in 2002 (Natural Resources Canada)Inevitably this will place huge pressures on the infrastructure of the city. Jobs will continue to be located in the urban core, and highways will need to expand rapidly. Judging by Ottawa’s track record with municipal light rail, there will be no mass transit solution anytime soon. It's time to rethink Ottawa’s master plan, and the upcoming National Capital Commission (NCC) greenbelt review is the perfect time to do it. Starting thoughts range from planning for density in the core to speeding up mass transit plans, however my purpose is just to get the conversation started. Ottawa is a beautiful city, and we pride ourselves on it. I’m not advocating tearing down our Greenbelt, I’m advocating that we start to make it a functional part of the city’s ecology. The City of Ottawa and the NCC need to consider the view from above as they plan for the future. This requires an approach of balancing environmental and infrastructural considerations, and finding city officials and community leaders who are up to the challenge.
Liam McGuire is a Master's student in Urban Geography at the University of British Columbia. He completed his Honour's BA at Trent University in 2009 in Human Geography and Political Science. Liam is very passionate about cities; their development, spatial growth and demographics. He has many opinions and insights about how cities should develop and could be contacted at: liam.mcguire@geog.ubc.ca
Monday, January 3, 2011
Guest Entry: Climate Change and the Construction Industry
By: Trevor Shah
We frequently hear about the negative impacts of climate change, but not often do we talk about the potential positive impacts and the opportunities that can stem from it. I wanted to take the chance to write about an industry that stands to benefit from increased global temperatures: the North American construction industry.
But before I begin explaining why this industry will benefit from higher global temperatures, please note that I will be using the A2 scenario from the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES). This conservative scenario projects an increase in global temperatures by about two degrees Celsius. Evidently, this temperature rise will contribute to many environmental changes which will greatly affect the construction industry.
To begin, there will be a rise in home and corporate building retrofits which will generate additional business for the construction industry. This is primarily due to rising electricity and natural gas prices in North America. Total electricity demand is projected to increase by 30 percent in 2035 (from 2008 levels). Accompanying this growth in demand is a 39 percent rise in electricity prices from the current average price. In addition, the price of natural gas in the U.S. and Canada is expected to double as demand intensifies and lower-cost resources are depleted. If the United States and Canadian governments decide to introduce a carbon tax system, the price of natural gas will rise even further. This is because natural gas produces 117,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per billion British Thermal Units (BTU) of energy.
Due to rising energy prices, housing and building retrofits will generate higher savings and shorter payback periods. Furthermore, building retrofits will grow even more profoundly if Canadian and American governments continue to offer incentives such as energy retrofit programs. The U.S. Government will be offering $452 million for the Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE program) which will allocate funds for energy efficiency retrofits. The United States government also recently introduced the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) PowerSaver Loan Program which provides Americans with up to $25,000 in low-cost loans from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). These programs will lead to considerable growth in home retrofits resulting in additional business for the construction industry.
Second, the United States will continue to experience increasing weather extremes due to climate change: heat waves and heavy downpours are very likely to increase in frequency and intensity. Substantial areas of North America are likely to have more frequent droughts of greater severity, hurricanes, heat waves, rainfall intensity and cold season storms are likely to become more frequent with stronger winds. Combined, these weather extremes will cause a surge in property damage.
In addition, regions with rivers and lakes will need to be protected from floods as the amplified intensity of rainfall and storms continues to rise. The associated clean-up and repair work will generate considerable business for the North American construction industry. This is what Matt Kahn discusses at length in his book Climatopolis. That is, forward looking entrepreneurs --such as those found in the construction industry -- can reap huge profits if people start to think more seriously about the value of adapting to climate change. People will soon realize the need to make their homes more climate change resilient and this will allow the construction industry and other forward looking entrepreneurs to innovate and make profits.
The demand for more resilient building materials, greater protection buffers around our homes and even the floating home idea proposed by Tom Mayne, will not only help urbanites adapt to climate change risks (floods, hurriances etc) but bring about new innovation, smart design and creativity from construction companies, product designers and more.
There will certainly be negative consequences of rising global temperatures on the North American construction industry. Firstly, the cost of construction materials are likely to increase due to higher demand, greater transportation costs, depletion of natural resources and future carbon taxes. Secondly, rises in global temperature may create unsafe working conditions due to extreme heat and the frequency of heat waves (say if you live in cities like LA or Phoenix). Lastly, melting of the permafrost will reduce the bearing capacity of the soil causing settlement and structural damage. However, these negative impacts are offset by the significant benefits.
I don’t mean to paint a negative or daunting future for North America. Instead, I wanted to talk about some of the opportunities that climate change can bring to industries like construction and forward looking people who care about the future and environmental sustainability.
Trevor Shah is a third-year commerce student at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario. He is currently on an international student exchange in Bangkok, Thailand.
We frequently hear about the negative impacts of climate change, but not often do we talk about the potential positive impacts and the opportunities that can stem from it. I wanted to take the chance to write about an industry that stands to benefit from increased global temperatures: the North American construction industry.
But before I begin explaining why this industry will benefit from higher global temperatures, please note that I will be using the A2 scenario from the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES). This conservative scenario projects an increase in global temperatures by about two degrees Celsius. Evidently, this temperature rise will contribute to many environmental changes which will greatly affect the construction industry.
To begin, there will be a rise in home and corporate building retrofits which will generate additional business for the construction industry. This is primarily due to rising electricity and natural gas prices in North America. Total electricity demand is projected to increase by 30 percent in 2035 (from 2008 levels). Accompanying this growth in demand is a 39 percent rise in electricity prices from the current average price. In addition, the price of natural gas in the U.S. and Canada is expected to double as demand intensifies and lower-cost resources are depleted. If the United States and Canadian governments decide to introduce a carbon tax system, the price of natural gas will rise even further. This is because natural gas produces 117,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per billion British Thermal Units (BTU) of energy.
Due to rising energy prices, housing and building retrofits will generate higher savings and shorter payback periods. Furthermore, building retrofits will grow even more profoundly if Canadian and American governments continue to offer incentives such as energy retrofit programs. The U.S. Government will be offering $452 million for the Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE program) which will allocate funds for energy efficiency retrofits. The United States government also recently introduced the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) PowerSaver Loan Program which provides Americans with up to $25,000 in low-cost loans from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). These programs will lead to considerable growth in home retrofits resulting in additional business for the construction industry.
Second, the United States will continue to experience increasing weather extremes due to climate change: heat waves and heavy downpours are very likely to increase in frequency and intensity. Substantial areas of North America are likely to have more frequent droughts of greater severity, hurricanes, heat waves, rainfall intensity and cold season storms are likely to become more frequent with stronger winds. Combined, these weather extremes will cause a surge in property damage.
In addition, regions with rivers and lakes will need to be protected from floods as the amplified intensity of rainfall and storms continues to rise. The associated clean-up and repair work will generate considerable business for the North American construction industry. This is what Matt Kahn discusses at length in his book Climatopolis. That is, forward looking entrepreneurs --such as those found in the construction industry -- can reap huge profits if people start to think more seriously about the value of adapting to climate change. People will soon realize the need to make their homes more climate change resilient and this will allow the construction industry and other forward looking entrepreneurs to innovate and make profits.
The demand for more resilient building materials, greater protection buffers around our homes and even the floating home idea proposed by Tom Mayne, will not only help urbanites adapt to climate change risks (floods, hurriances etc) but bring about new innovation, smart design and creativity from construction companies, product designers and more.
There will certainly be negative consequences of rising global temperatures on the North American construction industry. Firstly, the cost of construction materials are likely to increase due to higher demand, greater transportation costs, depletion of natural resources and future carbon taxes. Secondly, rises in global temperature may create unsafe working conditions due to extreme heat and the frequency of heat waves (say if you live in cities like LA or Phoenix). Lastly, melting of the permafrost will reduce the bearing capacity of the soil causing settlement and structural damage. However, these negative impacts are offset by the significant benefits.
I don’t mean to paint a negative or daunting future for North America. Instead, I wanted to talk about some of the opportunities that climate change can bring to industries like construction and forward looking people who care about the future and environmental sustainability.
Trevor Shah is a third-year commerce student at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario. He is currently on an international student exchange in Bangkok, Thailand.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Guest Entry: How can HSR gain speed and momentum in North America?
By: Leonard MachlerInfrastructure inflation has caught up with us, and we are starting to get used to billion dollar projects being thrown around with the casualness that we used to reserve for bus stops and phone booths. And even though high speed rail (HSR) may cost less than expanding airport and freeway capacity – with the added benefit that it provides a transportation alternative that is more environmentally friendly and that is meant to stimulate development in dense, walkable downtowns, the cost of HSR still represents a significant chunk of change.
The California High Speed rail system is estimated – at a minimum – to cost around $40 billion dollars; upgrading the Northeast Corridor of the United States for 300 km/h operation has been pegged at $117 billion. To compare, this figure is about the same as the total economic output of the Ukraine last year. Even if high speed rail in the US was not a political hot potato, it would be hard for any government to scrounge up that kind of cash. To compensate, governments, such as the Obama administration, contribute toward the project incrementally by providing “small” funding commitments.
This year, roughly $1.4 billion (including $624 million that had been allocated to Wisconsin, but turned down by a newly-elected Republican governor) was earmarked for the California High Speed Rail (HSR) project. In 2009, $2.3 billion was allocated to the California HSR program. At this rate, it will take over 20 years to fund the project in full, so the California HSR authority has proposed building a segment of the line between the two Central Valley cities of Fresno and Hanford. While not so small that they can’t be found on a map, connecting these two towns with a high speed rail line hardly has the cachet as a link between San Francisco and Los Angeles. Predictably, critics have derided this first segment as a line between nowhere and nowhere.
On the one hand, they are off base: the segment has to be built eventually, so why not now? Moreover, the short line would serve as a handy test track to evaluate the performance of high speed trains before they see regular service. On the other hand, the fact that it will be used as a test track for nearly a decade before regular service begins is a political high-wire act because almost nobody other than industry insiders will see the public benefits (i.e. trains that people can actually ride on) for this project. For the average voter, the line will not just be a train from nowhere to nowhere, it will be a line from nowhere to nowhere with no trains on it. Did it have to be this way? Are we doomed to wait an eternity until enough cash trickles in so that we can build a line people can actually use?
Most European countries have a different attitude. They would use the partial funding to build a short high speed line – similar to the Hanford-Fresno demonstration line – and then run the remainder of the service on conventional track. This way the public gets high speed rail service from day one and, over time, services and speeds improve as an increasing amount of high speed track comes on line.
This was how I remember the evolution of high speed rail in Germany. When I first used the system as a kid in the early 90s, only a handful of sections – usually meant to bypass especially slow or built up areas – were actually genuine high speed rail lines. Most other times, the ICE train would plod along the old rail line, bypassing freights and slower passenger trains at a comparatively “slow” 160 km/h. As the years went by, the ICE would spend less of its time dodging freight trains on the old tracks and more of its time speeding through the German countryside in its own dedicated high speed line.
It’s time for California and other North American jurisdictions to try a similar approach. The high speed line in the Central Valley should be built for demonstration purposes, as is the plan, but conventional trains should be allowed to use it – at least until the full HSR line is built out. Granted, track conditions in Germany – even on old, conventional lines – are better than pretty much anything that exists in North America today and are also electrified for higher speed too. California could use the earmark from the next two years to upgrade the existing track between San Francisco and Los Angeles* to support at least some quasi high speed service using conventional passenger trains, while taking advantage of the short high speed segment in the Central Valley.
Running conventional trains at higher speeds along incrementally longer stretches of high speed rail is not as sexy as a bullet train whisking passengers along a fully built-out line, but at least it has the chance of seeing the light of day sometime this decade. More importantly, it provides taxpayers with the impression that the line is immediately useful. As they say, it’s not perfect, but at least it’s a start.
Leonard Machler is a PhD student in the School of Community and Regional Planning at UBC. He is a transportation enthusiast and is a strong advocate for more sustainable and accessible urban transportation systems.
*For a rail map comparing trips statistics (airplane, HSR and car) between San Francisco and Los Angeles, click here.*
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Guest Entry: Assessing the Environmental Impacts of the Tar Sands
By: Trevor Shah
Please note that I will not focus on the economic benefits of the Tar Sands as these are already widely known. Rather, I focus on the detrimental environmental impacts as these far outweigh the short-term economic benefits.
Land Use
In March 2008, Syncrude Canada became the first oil company to receive a reclamation certificate from the Alberta government for restoring 104 hectares of land. Syncrude claims to have restored 22 percent of their disturbed land to date; however the Alberta government has not given Syncrude a reclamation certificate for this restored land (apart from the 104 hectares).
The Alberta government has been criticized by the Alberta Auditor General for its poor record in tracking land reclamation of Tar Sands operators. According to the Government of Alberta, only 0.16 percent of the total land disturbed by Tar Sands extraction has been reclaimed. This 0.16 percent represents the 104 hectares of land that was reclaimed by Syncrude in March 2008.
The 11 companies operating in the oil sands claim to have collectively restored 11 percent of total disturbed land; however, there is no government certification to support this claim.
This is highlighted very clearly in Figure 2 (of my report) which shows the gap between the disturbance of land and its reclamation rates. Further, it is important to note that the blue line represents the land that has been reclaimed by industry, not the land that has been certified by the government.
Water
Tar Sands mining operators have been licensed to extract 359 million cubic meters of water from the Athabasca River. This is double the amount of water consumed by the City of Calgary annually. What’s more, 92 percent of this water ends up in contaminated tailing ponds and the Government of Alberta does not have any reclamation standards for the 840 million cubic metres of tailing lakes. Few technologies exist to remediate tailing lakes and those that do exist, are extremely costly: it is estimated that the cost of remediating one tonne of tailings is between $13.09 and $16.40.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Alberta Tar Sands are the single largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. Furthermore, Tar Sands companies do not have to pay to neutralize their carbon emissions. By 2015, Fort McMurray will emit more greenhouse gas emissions than all of Denmark, a country with 5.5 million citizens. Further, it is estimated that Tar Sands oil produces at least three times more emissions per barrel than conventional crude oil.
Sand Waste
By 2010, the Tar Sands industry will have generated eight billion tonnes of sand waste which contains naphthenic acid and paraffin: chemicals which can have adverse health effects on mammals leading to liver problems and brain haemorrhaging.
Earth and Soil Waste
According to the Government of Alberta (2007), open pit mining entails “clearing trees and brush from a site and removing the overburden - the topsoil, muskeg, sand, clay and gravel - that sits atop the Tar Sands deposit”. This overburden is often 75 metres deep and is taken offsite by large trucks. In the end, it is estimated that four tonnes of earth must be removed for every barrel of oil produced.
The Government of Alberta must set stricter environmental legislation that will ensure the price of oil is reflective of the aforementioned negative externalities it produces. Further, the Alberta government must impose deadlines for land and tailing ponds to be reclaimed by, and eliminate all government subsidies to Tar Sands companies. These strategies will increase the price of Tar Sands oil causing companies to invest in more efficient technologies, or leave the market due to reduced profitability.
To read the full report, see here [scribd].
Trevor Shah is a third-year commerce student at Queen’s University. He wrote a comprehensive report on the environmental impacts of the Tar Sands for his Sustainable Strategies Class.
Please note that I will not focus on the economic benefits of the Tar Sands as these are already widely known. Rather, I focus on the detrimental environmental impacts as these far outweigh the short-term economic benefits.
Land Use
In March 2008, Syncrude Canada became the first oil company to receive a reclamation certificate from the Alberta government for restoring 104 hectares of land. Syncrude claims to have restored 22 percent of their disturbed land to date; however the Alberta government has not given Syncrude a reclamation certificate for this restored land (apart from the 104 hectares).
The Alberta government has been criticized by the Alberta Auditor General for its poor record in tracking land reclamation of Tar Sands operators. According to the Government of Alberta, only 0.16 percent of the total land disturbed by Tar Sands extraction has been reclaimed. This 0.16 percent represents the 104 hectares of land that was reclaimed by Syncrude in March 2008.
The 11 companies operating in the oil sands claim to have collectively restored 11 percent of total disturbed land; however, there is no government certification to support this claim.
This is highlighted very clearly in Figure 2 (of my report) which shows the gap between the disturbance of land and its reclamation rates. Further, it is important to note that the blue line represents the land that has been reclaimed by industry, not the land that has been certified by the government.
Water
Tar Sands mining operators have been licensed to extract 359 million cubic meters of water from the Athabasca River. This is double the amount of water consumed by the City of Calgary annually. What’s more, 92 percent of this water ends up in contaminated tailing ponds and the Government of Alberta does not have any reclamation standards for the 840 million cubic metres of tailing lakes. Few technologies exist to remediate tailing lakes and those that do exist, are extremely costly: it is estimated that the cost of remediating one tonne of tailings is between $13.09 and $16.40.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Alberta Tar Sands are the single largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. Furthermore, Tar Sands companies do not have to pay to neutralize their carbon emissions. By 2015, Fort McMurray will emit more greenhouse gas emissions than all of Denmark, a country with 5.5 million citizens. Further, it is estimated that Tar Sands oil produces at least three times more emissions per barrel than conventional crude oil.
Sand Waste
By 2010, the Tar Sands industry will have generated eight billion tonnes of sand waste which contains naphthenic acid and paraffin: chemicals which can have adverse health effects on mammals leading to liver problems and brain haemorrhaging.
Earth and Soil Waste
According to the Government of Alberta (2007), open pit mining entails “clearing trees and brush from a site and removing the overburden - the topsoil, muskeg, sand, clay and gravel - that sits atop the Tar Sands deposit”. This overburden is often 75 metres deep and is taken offsite by large trucks. In the end, it is estimated that four tonnes of earth must be removed for every barrel of oil produced.
The Government of Alberta must set stricter environmental legislation that will ensure the price of oil is reflective of the aforementioned negative externalities it produces. Further, the Alberta government must impose deadlines for land and tailing ponds to be reclaimed by, and eliminate all government subsidies to Tar Sands companies. These strategies will increase the price of Tar Sands oil causing companies to invest in more efficient technologies, or leave the market due to reduced profitability.
To read the full report, see here [scribd].
Trevor Shah is a third-year commerce student at Queen’s University. He wrote a comprehensive report on the environmental impacts of the Tar Sands for his Sustainable Strategies Class.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Guest Entry: Greater Utility for Green vehicles must go beyond Green marketing
By: Caitlin Yan
Green marketing and green products - once just buzzwords in the corporate world are now, finally realizing exponential growth in the consumer marketplace. There exists, however, a lag in the adoption rates for some of these green products. Is the marketing all wrong? Are the creative agencies missing their mark? Not necessarily. While most Canadians support environmental sustainability in theory, the kind of behavioural change that some green products call for is often more than consumers are ready to accept.
One of the most obvious obstacles to incorporating green products into your daily routine is the higher price tag. Furthermore, the goods and actions that have the greatest positive impact on the health of the environment often require the consumer to make changes to habitual routines, patterned schedules and all in all, buy more complementary “stuff”. A good example is the array of green vehicles making their way into your neighbourhood dealerships.
At this point, we’ve heard our fair share of how these vehicles can significantly lessen our reliance on oil and in turn, reduce the amount of harmful pollutants released into the air. So why then, has the demand for these vehicles been disappointing? There are a few factors that have to be considered before this question can be answered.
The existing price differential between traditional gasoline-powered vehicles and alternative energy vehicles (such as hybrids and electric powered vehicles) is a major roadblock for many consumers. Also, the fuel economy offered by some green vehicles is less than stellar which only appeals to a small segment of consumers more concerned with making a social statement than saving some coin. On top of that, the year-end blowout sales apply almost exclusively to traditional fuel vehicles thereby widening the gap between the costs of the two types of vehicles.
The slow sales can be attributed to hesitation on the supplier side as well. It’s not only the consumers who are reluctant to adopt this technology. It should come as no surprise that electric vehicles are more expensive to manufacture than traditional vehicles, but did you know that car makers actually lose money on each unit they sell because of the current retail price? Electric vehicles currently account for less than 2% of all vehicles sales and there are few signs indicating an increase in consumer demand. It looks like both manufacturer and consumer are waiting for the other to make the first move.
Finally, another indication of the current stalemate is the lack of electric car chargers and charging stations on the market. An electric car is by no means a stand-alone purchase as it requires the aforementioned accessory components to function properly. Battery charger suppliers appear to be waiting for car manufacturers to introduce more electric vehicles and car manufacturers are holding off until consumers show a greater interest in these non-traditional vehicles. The fact remains that there are not enough charging stations and chargers to reduce “range anxiety” – the fear of being stuck on the road without any power. Unfortunately, the solution is not as trivial as simply making more of the vehicles or the chargers.
Hopefully after taking a look at some of the contributing factors, the true nature of the situation is a bit clearer. The slow adoption of green vehicles is not only a marketing problem. Sure, the marketing departments of Nissan and Ford should be ramping up their efforts to better address their consumers’ perceptions of green vehicles. The economics and social views of green vehicles have shifted away from where they started when the talk of green vehicles first began. The progress made in regards to the complementary technology and systems for green vehicles needs an in-depth, critical evaluation (calling all R&D professionals).
There are many consumers who want to do their part for the environment by owning a greener vehicle but won’t do so until there is greater utility and when the infrastructure is a reality. Even with the tricks and illusions (critics words, not mine) available to marketers today, you would be hard pressed to find someone to successfully market a product or service that doesn’t exist.
Caitlin Yan is a recent graduate of the Business Administration program at Wilfrid Laurier University. She has a specialization in Brand Communication and Management. Caitlin has a keen interest in products and behaviours that are less harmful to the health of humans and the environment.
Green marketing and green products - once just buzzwords in the corporate world are now, finally realizing exponential growth in the consumer marketplace. There exists, however, a lag in the adoption rates for some of these green products. Is the marketing all wrong? Are the creative agencies missing their mark? Not necessarily. While most Canadians support environmental sustainability in theory, the kind of behavioural change that some green products call for is often more than consumers are ready to accept.
One of the most obvious obstacles to incorporating green products into your daily routine is the higher price tag. Furthermore, the goods and actions that have the greatest positive impact on the health of the environment often require the consumer to make changes to habitual routines, patterned schedules and all in all, buy more complementary “stuff”. A good example is the array of green vehicles making their way into your neighbourhood dealerships.
At this point, we’ve heard our fair share of how these vehicles can significantly lessen our reliance on oil and in turn, reduce the amount of harmful pollutants released into the air. So why then, has the demand for these vehicles been disappointing? There are a few factors that have to be considered before this question can be answered.
The existing price differential between traditional gasoline-powered vehicles and alternative energy vehicles (such as hybrids and electric powered vehicles) is a major roadblock for many consumers. Also, the fuel economy offered by some green vehicles is less than stellar which only appeals to a small segment of consumers more concerned with making a social statement than saving some coin. On top of that, the year-end blowout sales apply almost exclusively to traditional fuel vehicles thereby widening the gap between the costs of the two types of vehicles.
The slow sales can be attributed to hesitation on the supplier side as well. It’s not only the consumers who are reluctant to adopt this technology. It should come as no surprise that electric vehicles are more expensive to manufacture than traditional vehicles, but did you know that car makers actually lose money on each unit they sell because of the current retail price? Electric vehicles currently account for less than 2% of all vehicles sales and there are few signs indicating an increase in consumer demand. It looks like both manufacturer and consumer are waiting for the other to make the first move.
Finally, another indication of the current stalemate is the lack of electric car chargers and charging stations on the market. An electric car is by no means a stand-alone purchase as it requires the aforementioned accessory components to function properly. Battery charger suppliers appear to be waiting for car manufacturers to introduce more electric vehicles and car manufacturers are holding off until consumers show a greater interest in these non-traditional vehicles. The fact remains that there are not enough charging stations and chargers to reduce “range anxiety” – the fear of being stuck on the road without any power. Unfortunately, the solution is not as trivial as simply making more of the vehicles or the chargers.
Hopefully after taking a look at some of the contributing factors, the true nature of the situation is a bit clearer. The slow adoption of green vehicles is not only a marketing problem. Sure, the marketing departments of Nissan and Ford should be ramping up their efforts to better address their consumers’ perceptions of green vehicles. The economics and social views of green vehicles have shifted away from where they started when the talk of green vehicles first began. The progress made in regards to the complementary technology and systems for green vehicles needs an in-depth, critical evaluation (calling all R&D professionals).
There are many consumers who want to do their part for the environment by owning a greener vehicle but won’t do so until there is greater utility and when the infrastructure is a reality. Even with the tricks and illusions (critics words, not mine) available to marketers today, you would be hard pressed to find someone to successfully market a product or service that doesn’t exist.
Caitlin Yan is a recent graduate of the Business Administration program at Wilfrid Laurier University. She has a specialization in Brand Communication and Management. Caitlin has a keen interest in products and behaviours that are less harmful to the health of humans and the environment.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Guest Entry: A short story on Brazil's colonial forests
By: Diogo Cabral
Are there any positive aspects of deforestation? Well, since humanity spent most of its time on Earth devastating forests, there must be! Historians tends to be very careful when judging past human actions. Indeed, for pre-modern humans, the forest had to be used. We can imagine the astonishment with which those men and women would react to the idea of preserving the forest. With the exception of a tiny intellectual elite – in fact, only a small portion within that elite – the conversion of forest was not seen as something bad.
Most people conceived of clearing and burning the forest as the inevitable progress of the great human "home". Snakes, scorpions, spiders, mosquitoes, fleas, ticks, ants and other forest dwellers can be just minor annoyances when one has nylon tents, rubber boots, mosquito repellent, and antidotes to poisons; but not when one’s only weapons are scythes, firebrands and the faith in the Creator. Clearing the forest was not necessarily "destruction", but a natural transition from a dark, messy and dangerous space to a lighted, orderly and reliable place.
In fact, when one speaks of forest destruction or degradation, one misses much of the bigger picture. The “declensionist narrative” – as it is known in the historiographical community – flows in an one-way street: this kind of account tells the story of the decaying forest or that the forest environment was devastated but misses the wider implications. More fruitful is to view deforestation as a two-way street or, to use more philosophical terms, as a dialectical process.
Deforestation is not only an effect suffered by the forest because the deforesters themselves change along the way; conceptions about nature and abundance were transformed; techniques were modified and capital was created; cultural identities and boundaries were recreated; social inequalities were softened or hardened; the world, after all, is hardly the same after deforestation. This is not to say that nothing bad stemmed from past deforestation or that “this is the way things had to happen”. The environmental-dialectical vantage point only stresses that historical events do not occur in isolation but in networks or totalities. It's a more comprehensive approach to write history.
This conception can help us understand more completely the implications of different uses of the forest in the past. Of special importance is the study of the fortunes of the forests of less developed countries like Brazil. “Deforestation is a tragedy”, wrote the American historian Shawn Miller, “deforestation is an unmitigated disaster if little or no benefit is taken in the process”. He was referring to the process of economic appropriation of Brazil’s coastal forests. Unlike the United States or Canada, Brazil did not develop a vibrant timber industry in the colonial period. Most of the tropical rain forest was burned and not timbered. Colonists burned the woods to obtain biomass ashes, a powerful fertilizer for the soil. In fact they obtained huge profits raising sugarcane using this method.
At the end of eighteenth century, the Portuguese America, with half the settled area of British America, exported roughly the same value in commodities. The problem – although not a problem to the colonists themselves at the time – is that sugar plantations generated less economic linkages (or development) than timber exploitation. Because of the gigantic land lots, only the later sugar plantations were driven to market to obtain firewood. So small demand did not encourage competition and entrepreneurship in the timber sector. So capital investment and technological advancement in the milling industry were not present. So the production of iron – an indispensable raw material to the building of sawmills – was not encouraged inside the colony. And so on.
It must be said, however, that the small commercial harnessing of the Brazilian timber was not only due to the workings of sugar plantations. The forest itself posed serious difficulties to the establishment of a staple timber economy. The main problem was that, unlike temperate hardwoods and conifers, tropical hardwood species are pretty much scattered across the landscape. It is very difficult to find a cluster of, let’s say, rosewood. An all extractive economy, by definition, is built on a homogeneous basis of natural resources. In fact, all early modern extractive economies were organized upon large spatial concentrations of resources: animal skins, fish, wood and all kinds of "spice".
Standard products are especially important in international timber markets where demand in most cases is for very specific uses. Ironically, because of their greater wealth, the forests of the tropics provided very little incentive to commercial exploitation on a large scale.
Diogo Cabral is a visiting PhD student in Environmental History at UBC. He is visiting from the Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro in Brazil.
Are there any positive aspects of deforestation? Well, since humanity spent most of its time on Earth devastating forests, there must be! Historians tends to be very careful when judging past human actions. Indeed, for pre-modern humans, the forest had to be used. We can imagine the astonishment with which those men and women would react to the idea of preserving the forest. With the exception of a tiny intellectual elite – in fact, only a small portion within that elite – the conversion of forest was not seen as something bad.
Most people conceived of clearing and burning the forest as the inevitable progress of the great human "home". Snakes, scorpions, spiders, mosquitoes, fleas, ticks, ants and other forest dwellers can be just minor annoyances when one has nylon tents, rubber boots, mosquito repellent, and antidotes to poisons; but not when one’s only weapons are scythes, firebrands and the faith in the Creator. Clearing the forest was not necessarily "destruction", but a natural transition from a dark, messy and dangerous space to a lighted, orderly and reliable place.
In fact, when one speaks of forest destruction or degradation, one misses much of the bigger picture. The “declensionist narrative” – as it is known in the historiographical community – flows in an one-way street: this kind of account tells the story of the decaying forest or that the forest environment was devastated but misses the wider implications. More fruitful is to view deforestation as a two-way street or, to use more philosophical terms, as a dialectical process.
Deforestation is not only an effect suffered by the forest because the deforesters themselves change along the way; conceptions about nature and abundance were transformed; techniques were modified and capital was created; cultural identities and boundaries were recreated; social inequalities were softened or hardened; the world, after all, is hardly the same after deforestation. This is not to say that nothing bad stemmed from past deforestation or that “this is the way things had to happen”. The environmental-dialectical vantage point only stresses that historical events do not occur in isolation but in networks or totalities. It's a more comprehensive approach to write history.
This conception can help us understand more completely the implications of different uses of the forest in the past. Of special importance is the study of the fortunes of the forests of less developed countries like Brazil. “Deforestation is a tragedy”, wrote the American historian Shawn Miller, “deforestation is an unmitigated disaster if little or no benefit is taken in the process”. He was referring to the process of economic appropriation of Brazil’s coastal forests. Unlike the United States or Canada, Brazil did not develop a vibrant timber industry in the colonial period. Most of the tropical rain forest was burned and not timbered. Colonists burned the woods to obtain biomass ashes, a powerful fertilizer for the soil. In fact they obtained huge profits raising sugarcane using this method.
At the end of eighteenth century, the Portuguese America, with half the settled area of British America, exported roughly the same value in commodities. The problem – although not a problem to the colonists themselves at the time – is that sugar plantations generated less economic linkages (or development) than timber exploitation. Because of the gigantic land lots, only the later sugar plantations were driven to market to obtain firewood. So small demand did not encourage competition and entrepreneurship in the timber sector. So capital investment and technological advancement in the milling industry were not present. So the production of iron – an indispensable raw material to the building of sawmills – was not encouraged inside the colony. And so on.
It must be said, however, that the small commercial harnessing of the Brazilian timber was not only due to the workings of sugar plantations. The forest itself posed serious difficulties to the establishment of a staple timber economy. The main problem was that, unlike temperate hardwoods and conifers, tropical hardwood species are pretty much scattered across the landscape. It is very difficult to find a cluster of, let’s say, rosewood. An all extractive economy, by definition, is built on a homogeneous basis of natural resources. In fact, all early modern extractive economies were organized upon large spatial concentrations of resources: animal skins, fish, wood and all kinds of "spice".
Standard products are especially important in international timber markets where demand in most cases is for very specific uses. Ironically, because of their greater wealth, the forests of the tropics provided very little incentive to commercial exploitation on a large scale.
Diogo Cabral is a visiting PhD student in Environmental History at UBC. He is visiting from the Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro in Brazil.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Guest Entry: A few thoughts for the Canucks...
By: David Zetland of Aguanomics
Tim and Chris asked me to turn my California perspective on Canada's water situation. I won't talk about pollution from refining tar sands, aquifer depletion in the plains, unsustainable "traditional" fisheries and farms in Nova Scotia, Quebec's hydropower, or the water-people mismatch in Nunavut. Instead, I will talk about those great big lakes full of fresh water.
I was chatting with one of your neighbors about the potential for marking water from the Great Lakes. I told him that "you folks" should define diversions, clarify water rights, and create a market for trading rights.
"But David," he said. "There's so much water that the price is sure to be $0. Demand is so small compared to supply."
"Ahhh, but that's the point."
Apparently people are getting all excited and upset about Great Lakes water when it's really too abundant to worry about. A $0 price for water signifies one of two things. Either people are making senseless arguements about its precious nature when supply far exceeds demand, or people are making sensible arguments that need to be integrated into our definitions of supply and demand. In either case, we need more objective facts (prices) and fewer subjective emotions.
You tell me if I'm right or missed something.
But let's just assume for the moment that the price really would be $0. Does that mean that a market and prices are a bad idea?
No. First of all, it's useful to set up a framework when there is still plenty of water around. If the price rises above $0, then people will know that water is getting more scarce. Second, the value of water is always higher than its price. There's no need to fear that a $0 price connotes a $0 value.
Third, it's important to get market signals -- prices -- out there early. Water shortages are manmade, and they often show up because bureaucrats in charge of allocation do not aggregate all of the supply and demand signals that a market would. Bureaucrats would still keep their jobs (whew!), but they would make sure that the market -- rights, trades, delivery -- was functioning.
But some of you might be wondering if we don't already have a price for water, the price that appears on your monthly water bills. Well, no you don't. Those bills reflect the cost of delivering pressurized clean water 24/7. They reflect the cost of pipes, energy and salaries that go into that service. They do NOT reflect the price (or value) of water. That price is $0, not just because there's no market, but because most of your water comes from utilities that have a right to divert as much as they want from lakes, rivers or aquifers into the water distribution system.
By the way, your cost of service may be flat rate -- an all-you-can-eat fixed charge -- or uniform rate -- the more you use, the more you pay, but either system is based on recovering the cost of the system, not "paying for water." Note that uniform rates tend to reduce consumption (the same way that paying per liter of petrol does); they also make heavy water users pay for a larger share -- their "fair" share -- of the system costs.
It may not make sense to switch to meters -- if their installation cost is much greater than the water savings -- but they are the best first step towards promoting water conservation. (I wonder if farmers in the Plains buy metered water?)
Bottom Line: Good water management is equitable, efficient and sustainable. Don't start too late, or you'll follow California into a deep dark hole of "how the hell are we going to get out of this?"
Dr. David Zetland has a PhD in Agricultural and Resource Economics from the University of California, Davis. Currently, he is S.v. Ciriacy-Wantrup Postdoctoral Fellow in Natural Resource Economics and Political Economy, University of California, Berkeley.
Tim and Chris asked me to turn my California perspective on Canada's water situation. I won't talk about pollution from refining tar sands, aquifer depletion in the plains, unsustainable "traditional" fisheries and farms in Nova Scotia, Quebec's hydropower, or the water-people mismatch in Nunavut. Instead, I will talk about those great big lakes full of fresh water.
I was chatting with one of your neighbors about the potential for marking water from the Great Lakes. I told him that "you folks" should define diversions, clarify water rights, and create a market for trading rights.
"But David," he said. "There's so much water that the price is sure to be $0. Demand is so small compared to supply."
"Ahhh, but that's the point."
Apparently people are getting all excited and upset about Great Lakes water when it's really too abundant to worry about. A $0 price for water signifies one of two things. Either people are making senseless arguements about its precious nature when supply far exceeds demand, or people are making sensible arguments that need to be integrated into our definitions of supply and demand. In either case, we need more objective facts (prices) and fewer subjective emotions.
You tell me if I'm right or missed something.
But let's just assume for the moment that the price really would be $0. Does that mean that a market and prices are a bad idea?
No. First of all, it's useful to set up a framework when there is still plenty of water around. If the price rises above $0, then people will know that water is getting more scarce. Second, the value of water is always higher than its price. There's no need to fear that a $0 price connotes a $0 value.
Third, it's important to get market signals -- prices -- out there early. Water shortages are manmade, and they often show up because bureaucrats in charge of allocation do not aggregate all of the supply and demand signals that a market would. Bureaucrats would still keep their jobs (whew!), but they would make sure that the market -- rights, trades, delivery -- was functioning.
But some of you might be wondering if we don't already have a price for water, the price that appears on your monthly water bills. Well, no you don't. Those bills reflect the cost of delivering pressurized clean water 24/7. They reflect the cost of pipes, energy and salaries that go into that service. They do NOT reflect the price (or value) of water. That price is $0, not just because there's no market, but because most of your water comes from utilities that have a right to divert as much as they want from lakes, rivers or aquifers into the water distribution system.
By the way, your cost of service may be flat rate -- an all-you-can-eat fixed charge -- or uniform rate -- the more you use, the more you pay, but either system is based on recovering the cost of the system, not "paying for water." Note that uniform rates tend to reduce consumption (the same way that paying per liter of petrol does); they also make heavy water users pay for a larger share -- their "fair" share -- of the system costs.
It may not make sense to switch to meters -- if their installation cost is much greater than the water savings -- but they are the best first step towards promoting water conservation. (I wonder if farmers in the Plains buy metered water?)
Bottom Line: Good water management is equitable, efficient and sustainable. Don't start too late, or you'll follow California into a deep dark hole of "how the hell are we going to get out of this?"
Dr. David Zetland has a PhD in Agricultural and Resource Economics from the University of California, Davis. Currently, he is S.v. Ciriacy-Wantrup Postdoctoral Fellow in Natural Resource Economics and Political Economy, University of California, Berkeley.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Guest Entry: Bike Lanes Serve all Torontonians
This guest entry was written by Yvonne Bambrick for the Toronto Board of Trade. With the author's permission, Yvonne was kind enough to share it with us.
By: Yvonne Bambrick
Bike lanes are a non-partisan issue because they serve all Torontonians. These inexpensive pieces of infrastructure are an important component of the changing realities of urban transportation — not, as many attempt to paint them, a pet project for a small number of commuters.
Cities across North America have been transitioning from merely viewing bicycles as a recreational tool, to understanding that cycling is a legitimate and necessary transportation option. Bicycle infrastructure (lanes, sharrows, bike boxes, etc.) and an active cycling culture benefits drivers, pedestrians, transit riders and cyclists alike. However, infrastructure alone will not suffice — it must be paired with public education.
There are many immediate and positive impacts with bike lanes. They create a dedicated space in which cyclists feel safer, and encourage more people to choose cycling as a mode of transportation — they are a boon to local business and the most affordable and sustainable way to grow our road capacity.
More people on bicycles means fewer people taking up precious road space in cars, and a pressure valve for an overburdened peak-hour transit system. Bike lanes add a greater level of predictability to our roads by showing more clearly where we can expect each transportation mode to be traveling.
With more cyclists on our roads, the phrase “safety in numbers” holds true — the greater the number of cyclists, the more visible they become to motor vehicles and pedestrians. One of the greatest impacts of bike lanes is as a tangible expression of the fact that bicycles have a place in our transportation network.
Economy and Taxes
Encouraging and creating space for Torontonians to choose cycling transportation is one of the cheapest, fastest and most effective ways to accommodate our growing population, and to increase the capacity of our roadways to efficiently move people from A to B.
Bike lanes are cheap! A quick look at Portland, a prime example of a North American city that has fully integrated cycling, confirms this. They calculated that their entire complement of cycling related infrastructure — some 300 miles of bike lanes — cost approximately $60million; the equivalent to the cost of 1 mile of new freeway!
We often hear the argument, ‘If cyclists want bike lanes, they should pay for them.’ Cyclists already do pay for them. Anyone who pays rent or property tax in Toronto is paying for our municipal roadways. If you compare the relative impact of cars and bicycles on the roadways themselves, on our collective airspace, and the healthcare costs of pollution and a sedentary life that driving promotes, it is quite apparent that cyclists are actually subsidizing automobile drivers.
Cycling is also good for business. A recent study by the Clean Air Partnership conducted in Bloor West Village counters the popular myth that removing on-street parking is “bad for business.”
Their conclusions include:
•People who arrive by transit, foot, and bicycle visit more often and report spending more money than those who drive
•People who preferred to see street use reallocated for widened sidewalks or a bike lane were significantly more likely to spend more than $100 per month than those who preferred no change
•The majority of people surveyed, merchants included (58%) preferred to see street use reallocated for widened sidewalks or a bike lane, even if on-street parking were reduced by 50%.
•In this neighbourhood, the majority of merchants predicted that reducing on street parking in favour of widened sidewalks or a bike lane would either not impact or increase their daily customer numbers, and therefore do not believe it will negatively affect commercial activity.
Flow & Congestion
The core function of our roadways is to efficiently move people to and from destinations across the city — not simply, as some still believe, to rapidly throughput automobiles. In fact, the broader aim of Toronto’s much delayed 2001 Bike Plan and proposed Bikeway Network that was designed by our city’s transportation experts, is to insure minimum disruptions to motor vehicle traffic, transit and parking, while creating a safer transportation environment for the growing number of tax-paying Torontonians who choose to ride bicycles for getting around the city.
The streets of Toronto, with or without bike lanes, are a shared environment and all road users have a role to play as we negotiate these busy spaces on a daily basis. Predictable, responsible behaviour, indicating ones intentions through verbal and non-verbal communication, and a bit of good old fashion respect are the keys to safely sharing the road and maintaining the flow of all forms of traffic.
Safety
Road safety is everyone’s responsibility, and we could all use a refresher on our responsibilities. Due to the classification of bicycles as vehicles under the Highway Traffic Act, some confusion still exists because of the hybrid nature of bicycles – they are self propelled and human scale, yet mechanical vehicles. While subject to the same rules of the road, bicycles rely on momentum, have no protective shell, and are vulnerable to minor road surface disruptions.
For example, a small pothole or utility cut that might not affect a car could endanger a cyclist. In the absence of clearly designated places for cyclists to ride, the line between pedestrian/vehicular spaces has been blurred. Poor roadway conditions, combined with an often hostile roadway environment, caused in part due to a lack of sufficient infrastructure that would allow all traffic to flow better, and occasional bullying by intolerant drivers has in some cases pushed cyclists onto the sidewalks where they don’t belong.
Ultimately the thing we must all remember is that in a car/bike collision it is always the cyclist that loses – a bit of skin, a week of work, or in the worst circumstance, a life. That loss could be suffered by your neighbour, your child’s schoolteacher, your lawyer, or your brother — we all know and love a cyclist. Bike lanes and public education about road sharing responsibilities and best practice serve all Torontonians regardless of mode. We’re all in this together.
With education in mind, the Toronto Cyclists Union and our partners, have submitted a full update proposal for the Ontario Driver’s Handbook with far more pedestrian & cycling-related road sharing content throughout; we have created the Toronto Cyclists Handbook (soon available in Toronto’s top 17 languages), and we proposed a shorter and more accessible ‘Urban Cycling 101’ course to be added to the City’s Can-Bike cycling skills curriculum.
Leadership
Leadership regarding active transportation is needed from all levels of government in Canada. While we have seen modest improvements at the municipal level in recent years, and the beginnings of active transportation policy implementation at the provincial level via Metrolinx, we have yet to hear anything at all from the federal level.
On this issue, the US is several steps ahead of us so-called ‘progressive’ Canadians with the US Department of Transportation’s Policy statement on bicycle and pedestrian accommodation. This personal blog post from US Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood’s tabletop speech at the National Bike Summit in March 2010 reflects their new Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation Regulations and Recommendations. Canada, clearly, has some catching up to do.
Strength in Numbers
Those who have thus far been courageous enough, given current conditions, to choose cycling transportation should be supported and encouraged, not made to fight for acceptance and respect against ignorant, politically motivated, fear-mongering rhetoric. More people choosing cycling transportation is of benefit to all.
Yvonne Bambrick is the Executive Director of the Toronto Cyclists Union
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Guest Entry: Vermicomposting program a big hit in Queen’s residences
By: Trevor Shah
The Queen's Vermicomposting Program was initiated in the fall term of the 2009-2010 academic year and is the first systematic University Residence vermicomposting program in Canada. What’s more, the program is entirely student driven. Queen’s university helped us run the initiative through paying the necessary expenses to lease 11 hand-made vermicomposters from a local, student-run non-profit business called the Living Cities Company.
The idea for the Vermicomposting program came about in April 2009 when four students came together to explore ideas on how to make Queen’s residence greener. Though the project was initiated by four students, it became the project of hundreds of students living in residence. Throughout the year, the residents of the 11 floors in residences, led by their Residence Advisors, looked after the day-to-day maintenance of the composters.
It should be noted that these vermicomposters were used to process the food students ate outside of the cafeteria. Most students ate in the cafeteria which uses an industrial composter; this industrial composter is entirely separate from the vermicomposting program.
From the point of view of residents, Residence Advisors, custodial staff, and the Queen’s community, the program has been successful. As shown by organic waste statistics tracked by students in two different residence buildings, each vermicomposter is able to consistently divert 2-4kg of waste each every week. Throughout the 8 months, we were able to divert about 400kg of waste through using 11 vermicomposters.
To promote the initiative and garner support we wrote articles to 3 different media sources; this was one of the best ideas as we were shortly contacted by CBC Radio Host Wei Chen, who read one of our articles in a local Kingston newspaper and interviewed us on CBC Ontario Morning.
These articles can be found at:
http://www.queensjournal.ca/story/2009-11-10/news/residences-venture-vermicomposting/
http://www.thewhig.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1773166
http://qnc.queensu.ca/gazette/4b0bf3bcb0220.pdf
There is an array of benefits of vermicomposting for residence buildings. They include:
First, vermicomposting offers an easy, cheap, and sustainable way to divert student generated organic waste from garbage cans/landfills. Since you can dispose of waste on-site, there is no energy cost of transportation. Moreover, the start-up cost of vermicomposting is almost twenty times less expensive than procuring an industrial composter. Vermicomposters are also self-propagating, as the worms are able to reproduce within 3 months, allowing their offspring to be used to start another vermicomposter.
Second, vermicomposting is net-energy-neutral and non-polluting. Unlike industrial composters, the vermicomposting process does not require inputs of heat energy, because vermicomposting utilizes worms to convert waste into fertilizer. In addition, no harmful chemicals are added, making vermicomposting 100% organic.
Third, the vermicomposting progress is fast. In general, 2 pounds of red wiggler worms will decompose 1 pound of waste within 24 hours. The ability of worms to consume their weight daily means that the system has high-throughput and is able to handle the waste-generation requirements of students in residences.
Fourth, the compost produced by the worms can be sold as an excellent fertilizer. The vermicompost increases soil workability, water holding capacity, erosion, while moderating temperature of the soil environment. Compost also enhances microbial action in the soil, further increasing the remineralisation of soil nutrients for plant use.
Finally, vermicomposting has a great educational value, as it exposes you to the first-hand practicality and benefits of vermicomposting.
We are looking to double the number of vermicomposters to 22 next year and we have submitted a 26-page report to residence administration proposing this expansion.
Trevor Shah is a second-year commerce student at Queen’s University and is one of the four founding members of the Vermicomposting program.
The Queen's Vermicomposting Program was initiated in the fall term of the 2009-2010 academic year and is the first systematic University Residence vermicomposting program in Canada. What’s more, the program is entirely student driven. Queen’s university helped us run the initiative through paying the necessary expenses to lease 11 hand-made vermicomposters from a local, student-run non-profit business called the Living Cities Company.
The idea for the Vermicomposting program came about in April 2009 when four students came together to explore ideas on how to make Queen’s residence greener. Though the project was initiated by four students, it became the project of hundreds of students living in residence. Throughout the year, the residents of the 11 floors in residences, led by their Residence Advisors, looked after the day-to-day maintenance of the composters.
It should be noted that these vermicomposters were used to process the food students ate outside of the cafeteria. Most students ate in the cafeteria which uses an industrial composter; this industrial composter is entirely separate from the vermicomposting program.
From the point of view of residents, Residence Advisors, custodial staff, and the Queen’s community, the program has been successful. As shown by organic waste statistics tracked by students in two different residence buildings, each vermicomposter is able to consistently divert 2-4kg of waste each every week. Throughout the 8 months, we were able to divert about 400kg of waste through using 11 vermicomposters.
To promote the initiative and garner support we wrote articles to 3 different media sources; this was one of the best ideas as we were shortly contacted by CBC Radio Host Wei Chen, who read one of our articles in a local Kingston newspaper and interviewed us on CBC Ontario Morning.
These articles can be found at:
http://www.queensjournal.ca/story/2009-11-10/news/residences-venture-vermicomposting/
http://www.thewhig.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1773166
http://qnc.queensu.ca/gazette/4b0bf3bcb0220.pdf
There is an array of benefits of vermicomposting for residence buildings. They include:
First, vermicomposting offers an easy, cheap, and sustainable way to divert student generated organic waste from garbage cans/landfills. Since you can dispose of waste on-site, there is no energy cost of transportation. Moreover, the start-up cost of vermicomposting is almost twenty times less expensive than procuring an industrial composter. Vermicomposters are also self-propagating, as the worms are able to reproduce within 3 months, allowing their offspring to be used to start another vermicomposter.
Second, vermicomposting is net-energy-neutral and non-polluting. Unlike industrial composters, the vermicomposting process does not require inputs of heat energy, because vermicomposting utilizes worms to convert waste into fertilizer. In addition, no harmful chemicals are added, making vermicomposting 100% organic.
Third, the vermicomposting progress is fast. In general, 2 pounds of red wiggler worms will decompose 1 pound of waste within 24 hours. The ability of worms to consume their weight daily means that the system has high-throughput and is able to handle the waste-generation requirements of students in residences.
Fourth, the compost produced by the worms can be sold as an excellent fertilizer. The vermicompost increases soil workability, water holding capacity, erosion, while moderating temperature of the soil environment. Compost also enhances microbial action in the soil, further increasing the remineralisation of soil nutrients for plant use.
Finally, vermicomposting has a great educational value, as it exposes you to the first-hand practicality and benefits of vermicomposting.
We are looking to double the number of vermicomposters to 22 next year and we have submitted a 26-page report to residence administration proposing this expansion.
Trevor Shah is a second-year commerce student at Queen’s University and is one of the four founding members of the Vermicomposting program.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Guest Entry: Does anyone know about Bill C-474?
By: Emmalea Davis
Does anyone know about Bill C-474, because it just broke a record in Parliament this past Wednesday, when it passed its second reading in the House? The Bill is a Private Members Bill, proposed by an NDP representative from British Columbia’s Southern Interior, Alex Atamanenko. Titled “An Act respecting the Seeds Regulations”, it proposes that all genetically engineered organisms are subject to a market analysis as part of the approval process undertaken by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) under the Seeds Act. On Wednesday after a close – 153 to 134 – vote, the Bill became the first proposing changes to the rules regarding genetically engineered (GE) organisms to make it past a second reading in the House.
Since 2001, more than ten Private Members Bills have been set before the House of Commons, with only two even being selected for debate (2001 and again in 2008). Both of these were regarding mandatory labelling of GE foods, and both were defeated (126-91 and 156-101, respectively). Wednesday was the first time a Bill regarding GE foods was voted on, and supported, twice. It has now moved on to the Agriculture Committee, for study and likely amendments, before it will once again be voted on in the House.
If approved, the Bill would move onto the Senate for review and voting, and hopefully pass into law. Fingers crossed that Parliament doesn’t get prorogued again, before the House has time to consider the final draft coming out of the Agricultural Committee, which is what happens to far too many Bill these days.
Whether you are for or against, or don’t even care, about GE organisms, this Bill should interest you. Not only is it breaking Parliamentary records, but it is also the first time Parliament has acknowledged (through their support for a Bill like this) that perhaps Canada’s regulatory system regarding these “Novel Foods” isn’t perfect.
The call for a market analysis before approving these new organisms comes out of the current problems faced by Canadian flax farmers. In September of 2009, Germany discovered GE contamination in flax shipped from Canada. By November over 34 countries were reporting contamination from our flax, and Europe and Japan (our largest and third largest flax export markets – with the US in second) closed their markets. Today, though the markets are open again, farmers have to pay for 3-tier testing, once in Canada and then again when the shipment gets to Europe. If any contamination is detected, the shipment is sent back. Canada is the world’s largest flax exporter, and flax farmers have seen prices drop over 1/3, while at the same time are having to pay for multiple tests to certify their seeds and harvest are contamination-free.
Even worse, 2009 was a record year, and Canada now has a ridiculous surplus of flax which no one (aside from the US) wants. This same scenario played out in 1998 for Canadian canola farmers, and due to huge contamination issues Canadian organic canola farmers lost their certification – for good.
The scariest piece about the flax issue is that the source of contamination (CDC Triffid Flax) was deregistered and thought to be entirely destroyed in 2001, when flax farmers protested its approval for sale in Canada due to fears that just this sort of scenario might take place. Though the flax was determined to be “substantially equivalent” (and therefore safe) to conventional flax, flax farmers were so upset that its creator, the University of Saskatchewan, agreed to its deregistration. (Call me cynical, but if it had been Monsanto or Dupont the farmers would likely have had a much bigger fight on their hands.) Regardless, eight years later, no one knows how the contamination by a strain thought to be eliminated has managed to ‘infect’ so many farmers’ fields – especially considering the seed was never sold commercially.
Bill C-474 is not about opposing GE technology, nor placing unnecessary red-tape in the approval process. It is about ensuring that farmers will be protected from this happening again, by forcing the CFIA or the proponent of the new organism to ensure that there will be a market for both crops (conventional and engineered), even if contamination occurs. If this assessment had been done in the case of flax, it is likely it would never have been approved for field testing (in open fields in Saskatchewan from 1989-1995).
We know that pollen and seeds can’t be contained. We know that Canada is far more permissive with this technology than most of our trading partners, and we know that we are likely not going to change either of those facts anytime soon. The most important thing we can do, at this point, is to make sure our farmers, who are already under severe economic burdens, are protected. And that they no longer are responsible for paying the price when our technology gets away from us.
For anyone interested in seeing how their MP voted on Wednesday, click here. And you can find out more about the Bill and the flax issue here or from a more anti-GE perspective here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)